You said:
"In this thread, @ZeeOSix explained his theory as to why the fiber end caps of the EG and TG should be less susceptible to leakage at the leaf spring fitting, but I noted that we have seen recent examples of both EG and TG's leaking. I even went on to make a Bayesian argument that those filters might still be best to avoid despite his theory."
In order for a test to be valid, the test needs to be ran in manner that represents reality. What I was pointing out about the EG and TG fiber end cap Frams (and any and all other fiber end cap filters for that matter) is that you can't really conclude they have the same leaf spring leakage problem as the metal end cap filters with warped and ruffled leaf springs. On the fiber end cap filters, the leaf spring takes a unique "set" in the fiber end cap because it's under compressive force while assembled and that puts a corresponding and matching impression in the fiber end cap. So if the leaf spring is not tested with it in the same exact position as it was when assembled then it may have a small gap and show some light leakage. If the filter dome was but open without cutting open the filter like done in post 1 of this thread, then that would be testing it in the assembled configuration. Also, as pointed out too, if the center tube is bent inward (like in the one BR test video), or is too long and sticking up enough to prevent the leaf spring from fully seating on the fiber end cap, then that could also cause a leak path. But overall, I'd say filter with fiber end caps are going to have a better seal than these ruffled up leaf spings on metal end caps seen lately.
Yes, I understood that at the time and don't disagree with any of it (then or now). Note that I dropped the argument in those earlier posts as I understood and agreed with your point and didn't want to take it further.
My Bayesian argument = if a company has had problems in the past, the probability of a new bad example indicating a larger problem is higher.
You = Bayesian doesn't work here because there is a high likelihood that when people did the flashlight test, they didn't get the leaf spring lined up with the "set," which means that there may not have been a real failure.
Me (in my head) = Yeah, that could be true, so I'll let it go.
But that arguement could be used that all brands of oil fllters will suffer from some kind of defect ... that's been seen here for decades. When you start seeing repeated defects on the same brand of filters over an over, then it's pretty apparent there's a stitemic issue going on
Again, I agree and this is the only thing I was referencing from you as the context for my response to Glenda. Probably didn't even need to reference you as it's a fairly obvious point.
Closed louver can happen on every brand that uses them. Same with torn media ... I gave some examples above with links to the main threads of those examples. I've seen examples of the same filter model may have well formed louvers, and the another of the same model have mere slits and pretty choked down louvers. It's a manufacturing inconstancy issue. Of course anyone that understand this should be carefully inspecting any filter they buy and plan on using with a good LED flashlight and decide if the louver look good to them or not.
True, but my only point was that, if you're buying in person, this is at least a defect one can determine before purchase (as opposed to media tears or leakages which cannot be determined in advance).
So, not trying to pin the louver problem on Purolator exclusively, just saying that it is one of the arguments against using Purolator but it seems like a problem that can be mitigated.
Maybe ... but seems there are way less people cutting and posting used Purolator filters. So who knows without a decent number of C&Ps.
That could be a factor. I thought of that and almost included that in my post but decided not too since I didn't want to take the time to check to see how many Purolators had been posted of late.
Yes, as said above ... always inspect louvers and decide if it makes you feel good about using the filter. I don't anyone is out right saying avoid Purolator filters.
I disagree with that-- there are many people who have many, many times posted "stay away from M+H filters" as a complete and absolute blanket statement.
People post C&Ps and talk about certain Purolator efficiency numbers ... so with discussions like that people who read the imputs should decide what filters they want to use.
Yeah, I'm following the efficiency discussion as well, and it's an issue. But that problem seems to be centered around the Boss. I've not seen anyone question the red or blue cans-- they seem to be fine. So, I'm not really talking about that in my posts here.
Not as much inertial as before, but there are other things pointed out about every filter brand where people can then digest that info and decide for themselves which filter(s) to use. We are seeing that going on right now with the rufflled up and leaky leaf spring stuff.
I could be wrong, but I'm starting to believe that people today who say "stay away from Purolator because it's made by M+H which should be avoided entirely" are making those statements ~95% based on (real) past problems that seem to have little evidence of being a problem today-- the definition of "inertia."
BTW, all these arguments (I believe) apply to Wix as well, assuming you don't buy them online and can inspect the louvers before purchase.
